Can WebM already be called an open standard?

[Florian Weimer]

* J. B. Nicholson-Owens:

> micu wrote:
>> But what would you say: Can criterion 4 (managed and further developed
>> independently of any single vendor in aw process open to the equal
>> participation of competitors and third parties) already be identified to
>> be true?
>
> I think I don't understand what criterion 4 is meant to address nor do I 
> see how an unencumbered from-scratch implementation would not qualify as 
> satisfying criterion 4.

Another implementation does not change and improve the standard.
The standard remains unchanged.

IMHP, the whole concept is probably quite pointless.  After all, C# is
an open standard, but Emacs Lisp is not.  And neither are TeX nor
LaTeX.  To me, it doesn't seem to be a useful category to think in.